Vaccines Debate

Jimmers said:
muir: With all these vaccines, you’d think America would be last in infant mortality, setting the bar with the lowest infant mortality rate on the planet. However, we’re not even number ten.

Jimmers: Vaccines are given after a child is born, not before, and has no effect on infant mortality.
Click to expand...

Where did you get this quote from?

Also if vaccinations are given to children after birth and they are then they will have an impact on children under 1 year old
 
muir said:
Where did you get this quote from?

Also if vaccinations are given to children after birth and they are then they will have an impact on children under 1 year old
Click to expand...

It was quoted from the Melissa Melton article you posted. Sorry I was refuting her claim.
 
Jimmers said:
It was quoted from the Melissa Melton article you posted. Sorry I was refuting her claim.
Click to expand...

yeah its ok i found it

She says kids in the US are given 26 shots before the age of 1...youch!

I don't think you have refuted anything

I think that amount of shots in the first year of a childs life is going to be harmful

Anyone would think that we humans hadn't evolved to live on this planet the way they carry on!

26 shots before the age of one!
 
Jimmers said:
I have to admit, it does suck watching them being given, as a parent.
Click to expand...

Well they care so much about us they just want us to be really healthy

Thats why they encourage us to eat all that nutritious junk food

Also they care about our teeth which is why they put flouride (a by product of the aluminium industry and ingrediant in rat poison) into our water supply...cos they really really care...about...our....teeth

right?

Thats why we have no poor people in our country....cos they look after us so well...cos they really care

thats why they pump our kids with vaccines and drugs...cos they really really love us and they want to look after us and give us all nice presents
 
Last edited:
muir said:
yeah its ok i found it

She says kids in the US are given 26 shots before the age of 1...youch!

I don't think you have refuted anything

I think that amount of shots in the first year of a childs life is going to be harmful

Anyone would think that we humans hadn't evolved to live on this planet the way they carry on!

26 shots before the age of one!
Click to expand...

She made a claim that the high infant mortality rate of infants was linked to vaccinating infants. This is false. The high infant mortality is largely attributed to higher rate of preemie mortality, which is unrelated to vaccinations. I am personally unsure of why there is such a high rate of preemie death.
 
muir said:
Well they care so much about us they just want us to be really healthy

Thats why they encourage us to eat all that nutritious junk food

Also they care about our teeth which is why they put flouride (a by product of the aluminium industry and ingrediant in rat poison) into our water supply...cos they really really care...about...our....teeth

right?

Thats why we have no poor people in our country....cos they look after us so well...cos they really care

thats why they pump our kids with vaccines and drugs...cos they really really love us and they want to look after us and give us all nice presents
Click to expand...

Well, as long as we have nice presents......

No, I hear you. I'm pretty skeptical about what's being presented in the news and what is being handed down to us by our government and by corporations, and I try my best to arrive at the truth. I prefer to read directly from scientific journals, but because they are not free, it makes it hard to keep up on the research. I often have to rely on scientific journalists who often add additional interpretations of the data. But that's not nearly as bad as getting scientific news through Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN. By the time it has made it there it has been filtered and repackaged for mass consumption. That is when you start hearing claims like "a study has shown that people who drink a glass of wine a day have been shown to live longer," and that sort of thing.
 
wooooooooooooah!!!!!!!!!! I leave for a few hours and BAM it blows up!!!

In regards to the autism and vaccines link - a lot of the data is correlation and not causal. Just because the rates of autism increased with the introduction of the vaccines, doesn't mean the vaccines caused it. There is a wealth of other literature out there that suggests this like increased TV viewing, decreased exercise and time spent outdoors, diets, etc. are all contributions to autism increases.

I'm not saying that there isn't some truth, or that you shouldn't or should vaccinate your kids...I'm just saying that sometimes the information is misleading.

I do think there are A LOT of cases of vaccines, especially in 3rd world countries being used as experimental drugs. Even in America there's the famous Tuskegee experiment that calls into question the intentions of vaccines and biomedical companies:

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (/tʌsˈkiːɡiː/)[1] was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African American men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.[1]

The Public Health Service started working with the Tuskegee Institute in 1932. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama. 399 of those men had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 201[2] did not have the disease. The men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance, for participating in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood", a local term for various illnesses that include syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.

The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards, primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying. Revelation of study failures by a whistleblower led to major changes in U.S. law and regulation on the protection of participants in clinical studies. Now studies require informed consent (though foreign consent procedures can be substituted which offer similar protections; such substitutions must be submitted to the Federal Register unless statute or Executive Order require otherwise),[3] communication of diagnosis, and accurate reporting of test results.[4]

By 1947, penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. Choices available to the doctors involved in the study might have included treating all syphilitic subjects and closing the study, or splitting off a control group for testing with penicillin. Instead, the Tuskegee scientists continued the study without treating any participants and withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to others in the area.[5] The study continued, under numerous US Public Health Service supervisors, until 1972, when a leak to the press eventually resulted in its termination on November 16.[6] The victims of the study included numerous men who died of syphilis, wives who contracted the disease, and children born with congenital syphilis.[7] Physicians in this time were fixated on African American sexuality, and the willingness of African Americans to have sexual relations with those who were infected led them to believe that the responsibility for the acquisition of the disease was solely upon the individual. This need to place blame blinded the physicians to find ways to help the innocent infants born with the disease through no fault of their own.[8]

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, cited as "arguably the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history",[9] led to the 1979 Belmont Report and the establishment of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).[10] It also led to federal laws and regulations requiring Institutional Review Boards for the protection of human subjects in studies involving human subjects. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) manages this responsibility within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[11]
Click to expand...

A lot of time 'vaccines' will actually be experimental drugs, and they test them out on unknowing individuals. There's actually quite a few case studies of these. One would think/hope that with the current research ethics institutes monitoring projects, that this wouldn't happen...but I wouldn't be surprised if it still does.

On the one hand, I feel that these cases, and the fact that we don't ever really know what goes in it (from a public perspective), or often the longterm health impacts of them...that it's not good to make them mandatory...again, it's a slippery slope.

At the same time, from a population health practitioner, I see the benefits. Is it part of your societal duty to protect yourself against these things? I wouldn't want someone going off into space and then bringing back an alien disease form that ruptured out of my stomach...why should I be okay with someone not properly protecting themselves (and me) against deathly and highly contagious earth-born illnesses? Vaccines can help minimize the impacts of hazardous disease and illnesses- both at an individual and population level. They are a form of health care.


I don't know....it's a hard topic! Thank you to you guys for participating and providing evidence!
 
Last edited:
Jimmers said:
She made a claim that the high infant mortality rate of infants was linked to vaccinating infants. This is false. The high infant mortality is largely attributed to higher rate of preemie mortality, which is unrelated to vaccinations. I am personally unsure of why there is such a high rate of preemie death.
Click to expand...

That does not rule out the role of vaccines in infant mortality; also some premature babies will be vaccinated
 
Last edited:
Jimmers said:
Well, as long as we have nice presents......

No, I hear you. I'm pretty skeptical about what's being presented in the news and what is being handed down to us by our government and by corporations, and I try my best to arrive at the truth. I prefer to read directly from scientific journals, but because they are not free, it makes it hard to keep up on the research. I often have to rely on scientific journalists who often add additional interpretations of the data. But that's not nearly as bad as getting scientific news through Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN. By the time it has made it there it has been filtered and repackaged for mass consumption. That is when you start hearing claims like "a study has shown that people who drink a glass of wine a day have been shown to live longer," and that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Well the lancet published wakefileds study and then later retracted it no doubt under pressure

The journals are not free from pressure

The journals have owners who have business links and various vested interests

The publishing houses themselves are owned by the people behind the big corporations.

They decide whose work gets published and whose research gets funded

So the mainstream is not unbiased...it is dominated by corporate money
 
My youngest son almost died of Whooping Cough when he was 3 months old. Both my sons have had all their immunization and it has not caused them any harm whatsoever. Neither of them have autism or any form of allergy whatsoever. The diseases are much worse than the vaccines.
 
La Sagna said:
My youngest son almost died of Whooping Cough when he was 3 months old. Both my sons have had all their immunization and it has not caused them any harm whatsoever. Neither of them have autism or any form of allergy whatsoever. The diseases are much worse than the vaccines.
Click to expand...

Had your 3 month old had a vaccine by that point? If you had been following the schedule he would have done

They might have been totally fine had they not been immunised...you will not know so you cannot make a comparison

The vaccines have had side effects for many people

Schedule for a baby born today in the state of quebec:

[h=2]You should anticipate the following vaccinations for your child:[/h][h=3]2 months old[/h]
[h=3]4 months old[/h]
[h=3]6 months old[/h]
[h=3]12 months old[/h]
[h=3]18 months old[/h]
[h=3]4-6 years[/h]
 
muir said:
Had your 3 month old had a vaccine by that point? If you had been following the schedule he would have done

They might have been totally fine had they not been immunised...you will not know so you cannot make a comparison

The vaccines have had side effects for many people
Click to expand...

It was just before he was to have his vaccine. His 4 year old brother got it first and passed it on to him. I've had people tell me that it's good for kids to have these diseases but it would be impossible to convince a mom who watched her baby turn blue and almost choke to death because of a simple childhood communicable disease that that was good for him.
 
La Sagna said:
It was just before he was to have his vaccine. His 4 year old brother got it first and passed it on to him. I've had people tell me that it's good for kids to have these diseases but it would be impossible to convince a mom who watched her baby turn blue and almost choke to death because of a simple childhood communicable disease that that was good for him.
Click to expand...

So you hadn't vaccinated either your 4 year old or your 3 month old with anything before they both contracted whooping cough when the canadian schedule advises vaccinating at 2 months old?
 
I'm not sure what I think about vaccines... In my country, there was a big news that some young children/teenagers got narcolepsy from vaccines which had to be taken because of swine flu risk. But I don't remember that did those people have some different genes which ''helped'' to get narcolepsy from the vaccines. But I think medicines are big business, and sometimes I am a little afraid that they would do anything to get money and not testing the medicines enough before people are starting using them..
 
muir said:
So you hadn't vaccinated either your 4 month old or your 3 month old with anything before they both contracted whooping cough when the canadian schedule advises vaccinating at 2 months old?
Click to expand...

The 4 year old was vaccinated so he got a mild form because vaccines are not 100% protective since viruses can mutate. Whooping cough is never mild for a 3 month old because they haven't learned how to clear their air passages themselves, they're too young. I guess I must have been behind on the vaccines for my youngest son.

You are very passionate about this so I know nothing I can say will convince you that it is better to vaccinate your kids than not but I can tell you that you won't convince me otherwise either. I personally believe it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your kids. I know tons of kids that have been vaccinated and are perfectly fine. I also know some kids that have not been vaccinated (including some nieces and nephews) and they are not smarter or in any way 'above average' because they have not been vaccinated. They luckily have not contracted any of the childhood diseases but my brother has admitted that they are counting on others to vaccinate their kids so that the diseases don't spread. At least he's honest.
 
La Sagna said:
The 4 year old was vaccinated so he got a mild form because vaccines are not 100% protective since viruses can mutate. Whooping cough is never mild for a 3 month old because they haven't learned how to clear their air passages themselves, they're too young. I guess I must have been behind on the vaccines for my youngest son.

You are very passionate about this so I know nothing I can say will convince you that it is better to vaccinate your kids than not but I can tell you that you won't convince me otherwise either. I personally believe it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your kids. I know tons of kids that have been vaccinated and are perfectly fine. I also know some kids that have not been vaccinated (including some nieces and nephews) and they are not smarter or in any way 'above average' because they have not been vaccinated. They luckily have not contracted any of the childhood diseases but my brother has admitted that they are counting on others to vaccinate their kids so that the diseases don't spread. At least he's honest.
Click to expand...

So you got your older kid vaccinated and he got sick from the vaccination and past this sickness onto the younger one?

The vaccine not only didn't protect your older child but made them sick and not only that made your younger child sick as well

You also know unvaccinated kids who haven't been sick

Your brother should worry about the other kids being vaccinated because its the vaccinated kids that spread the infections...see articles i posted above (and your own story)

Good story though, thanks for sharing. Your honesty might help someone else who reads this to make the right decision
 
muir said:
So you got your older kid vaccinated and he got sick from the vaccination and past this sickness onto the younger one?

The vaccine not only didn't protect your older child but made them sick and not only that made your younger child sick as well
Click to expand...

My son didn't get sick from the vaccine. He had received the vaccine years previously. We visited Montreal where there was an outbreak of Whooping Cough. We all contracted Whooping Cough. It was very mild in my husband and I. We would have received the immunization when we were children.

Here is information on whooping cough:

Pertussis (whooping cough) is a highly communicable bacterial illness.
Its severity is greatest among infants who are too young to be protected by a complete vaccine series.
Acellular pertussis vaccines have an estimated effectiveness of 80% to 85% following 3 doses.
Click to expand...

Obviously this vaccine does not give 100% immunization but if it stops 80% to 85% of cases then you are likely saving the life of several infants. Whooping cough is usually not too bad in older children but it can be deadly in infants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top